What’s the Real Difference Between Conservatives and Libertarians?

Conservatives and libertarians supposedly agree with each other on economic issues, but disagree to some extent on social issues and foreign policy.

This is generally accurate. Principled conservatives (as opposed to the Bush/Rove variety) believe in limited government and free enterprise, so there is agreement on the economic side.

And there is disagreement on social issues, at least in terms of victimless crimes such as drugs, gambling and prostitution (though I actually think the disagreement could be bridged if libertarians went out of their way to explain that legalizing the aforementioned activities is not the same as personally approving of their abuse and if conservatives went out of their way to do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether criminalization makes matters worse rather than better).

…the passion of the tea-party movement is, in fact, a moral passion. It can be summarized in one word: not liberty, but karma. The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for “deed” or “action,” and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it’s just a law of the universe, like gravity.

So what does this have to do with libertarians and conservatives? Well, according to this research, there are some big differences between the two groups.

Last year my colleagues and I placed a nearly identical statement on our research site, YourMorals.org: “Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don’t infringe upon the equal freedom of others.” Responses from 3,600 Americans showed that self-described libertarians agreed with the statement most strongly, but liberals were right behind them. Social conservatives, who, according to national polls, make up the bulk of the tea party, were more tepid in their endorsement. …In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: “Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money.” Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it. On more karmic notions of fairness, however, conservatives and libertarians begin to split apart. Here’s a statement about the positive side of karma: “Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most.” Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical. And here’s a statement about the negative side of karma: “Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered.” Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it. …Libertarians are closer to conservatives on two of the five main psychological “foundations” of morality that we study—concerns about care and fairness (as described above). But on the other three psychological foundations—group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity—libertarians are indistinguishable from liberals and far apart from conservatives. …When you think about morality as a way of binding individuals together, it’s no wonder that libertarians (who prize individual liberty above all else) part company with conservatives. …The tea-party movement is a blend of libertarians and conservatives, but it is far from an equal blend, and it’s not clear how long it can stay blended. …The rank-and-file tea partiers think that liberals turned America upside down in the 1960s and 1970s, and they want to reverse many of those changes. …they want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin. Give them liberty, sure, but more than that: Give them karma.

This is all quite interesting, but I think it overstates the potential for disagreement between libertarians and conservatives. Unless I’m missing something, varying opinions on group loyalty, respect for authority, and spiritual sanctity shouldn’t be a hindrance to a coalition against subsidies, handouts, and bailouts.

[…] my job is to proselytize on behalf of economic liberty, I’m always trying to figure out what motivates people. To be blunt, I’ll hopefully be more effective if I understand how they decide what policies to […]

[…] my job is to proselytize on behalf of economic liberty, I’m always trying to figure out what motivates people. To be blunt, I’ll hopefully be more effective if I understand how they decide what policies […]

[…] the difference between libertarians and conservatives? I’ve touched on that issue before, citing some interesting research which suggests that the underlying difference involves cultural factors such as attitudes about […]

[…] are illuminating since they highlight how libertarians in some cases may differ from conservatives (click here for more on that issue), but I also included this t-shirt, which seems to capture the mindset of a […]

[…] that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of […]

[…] that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of […]

[…] written before about the underlying differences between conservatives, libertarians, and statists, and I’ve even suggested that libertarians and social conservatives should be natural allies on […]

[…] written before about the underlying differences between conservatives, libertarians, and statists, and I’ve even suggested that libertarians and social conservatives should be natural allies on […]

[…] The harder part of my job is reaching people with statist instincts. I wrote a post last week mocking an absurd example of Swedish egalitarianism, but I included some serious thoughts about why some people oppose liberty. How do I reach those people, especially when there’s some very interesting evidence showing fundamental differences in how liberals, conservatives, and libert…? […]

[…] The harder part of my job is reaching people with statist instincts. I wrote a post last week mocking an absurd example of Swedish egalitarianism, but I included some serious thoughts about why some people oppose liberty. How do I reach those people, especially when there’s some very interesting evidence showing fundamental differences in how liberals, conservatives, and libert…? […]

“In addition you say using illegal drugs is a victimless crime. I’d question that on multiple levels. First drugs are highly dangerous and you could be the victim yourself (as well as your family and friends). In addition others could learn about your habits and think it’s ok to do and subsequently hurt themselves following your example. Finally putting your money in the coughers of drug lords very likely supports the sale of extremely dangerous drugs such as cocaine and the intense violence that surrounds them. To say it’s a victimless crime…I respectfully disagree.”

I am in the Tea Party and most of my members would say their central concern is The Republic and the Constitution as defined by our founders. The Federal government was suppose to be constrained to the enumerated powers those 18 basic authorities permitted them by the states and the people ALL OTHER authorities were to remain with the states and the people. The commerce clause was initially intended to eliminate tariffs between the sovereign states. As to the General Welfare the operative word is PROMOTE vs provide.
The government nor the Constitution give us rights they cannot because their authority comes from their origin WE THE PEOPLE. The peoples rights are birth rights which were defined in common law and the constitutions Bill of Rights.
Most if not ALL social issues are a function of the States and their people.

I consider my self a conservative. I don’t mind the idea of having a big military presence around the world. I do believe in the free market system and keeping Christian values strong in America. I also believe in restoring the true intention of “separation of church and state”.

Farhad,
Where to start? Millions of Americans have worked their way out of poverty to make it big – so you do them a disservice by implying people are stuck as a consequence of birth. Next, programs like the Federal school meals programs are not investments, they are expenses. Every nickel spent is forcibly taken from someone else. Further, these types of programs are fraught with waste and abuse and disincentivise parents from providing for their own children. The Great Society under LBJ and Nixon may have had good intentions, but they caused terrible consequences as a result of their disruptive disincentives for family formation and work.

Americans have always been charitable toward those truly in need, and would be so again absent big government’s intrusion. So, a truly Darwinian society is not a likely outcome , at least not in the U.S. We have always been charitible as individuals, through church groups or civic organizations. The difference is, we get to decide what causes and who we wish to support, not far-removed government officials. Read Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy of American Compassion” for an excellent history of American charity.

Libertarianism is not anarchy – most libertarians, I believe, are in favor of abiding by our Constitution, which provides for limited government intrusion from the Federal level. However, it allows much more latitude for State and local government to provide goods and services to local citizens if the local citizens so choose. Therefore, if you want a school breakfast program or a new school or other social services, vote it in at the local level – don’t force people in Minnesota to pay for your kid’s meal in Delaware. The farther removed a government program is from the people who pay for it, the more likely it is to be abused by politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

I suggest you read everything you can get your hands on by Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell. They have addressed the questions you raise for decades.

Speaking as a quasi-liberal, I think there is an issue of justice in there as well, not just liberty. I agree that a Darwinian economic model is attractive – those that make it get to enjoy the spoils. However, it’s naive to think that the fruit of one’s labor is the only, or perhaps even the major determinant to economic success. Luck is also a huge factor. A kid who grows up in a broken family in the inner city, in a culture of drugs and violence will have to be extraordinary to break free of that and complete high school, let alone go to college. A kid who is born in the middle class just needs to be ordinary to do the same. So part of the liberal obsession is in leveling the playing field and providing greater opportunity to all.

Let’s consider a program like free school breakfast, paid for by our taxes. At first it seemed wacky to me, but when I dug into it, I learned that it’s based upon studies that showed that many lower-income children literally did not have breakfast, and that hungry kids were distracted in the classroom. Economically, it’s advantageous to society to invest in developing its members so they can be productive. So one could consider that this program is a good investment (economically). This economic consideration leads to public education and social programs and such, all typically associated with liberal causes.

I like liberterianism in theory because it’s simple, but I’m not sure how to deal with the messy world. How do you deal with the economic issues of externalities and the tragedy of the commons? How do you deal with long-term investments? Who builds bridges and dams? Who handles the enforcement of laws at all levels? What about handling monopolies, disclosures, etc? If social services are private, then if there is an accident, should the first responders make sure the individuals have adequate insurance before responding? It gets messy fast.

Well first you have to differentiate between neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. Paleocons have more in common with libertarians than liberals, whereas neocons have less in common with libertarians than liberals. I think this was the point of the beginning of the article by mention bush/rove. As a paleocon I think we should have a strong military to beat ass if necessary, that doesn’t mean having hundreds of bases around the world and trying to impose democracy. Additionally I think it doesn’t matter who is in power regarding war. Liberals claim to be antiwar but they all essentially got us into wars. With the exception of WWII, which is debatable, we had no reason to get involved in WWI, Vietnam, or Kosovo. Gore blasted Cheney/Bush Sr for not invading Iraq when they had the chance. It’s easy for liberals to say no to war when they aren’t in power but when they are they aren’t much different, regardless who wins in 2012 I think we are going to war with Iran, even though Obama is supposedly one of the most antiwar politicians.

Economically neo’s are economically closer to Clinton’s third way(ie corruption), even though they would deny it, and paleo’s are more Milton Friedman. Friedman had a lot in common with the Austrians and he even talked about not liking the fed, it was just he spent more time trying to figure out how to make it work best whereas Rothbard wanted to end it completely.

I have little to nothing in common with conservatives. To me my libertarianism is built on the non-aggression axiom. The only thing that we may have in common may be some economic concepts, but really there are little to no Austrian conservatives.

I feel much more at home with the Anti-War Pro-Migrant left than the Pro-Police Pro-War right. They support the crux of the state and the complete opposite of what the non-aggression axiom would support.

Steve: I think the liberals idea of liberty is much worse than you believe. They believe in the four freedoms:
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
The last two are obviously problems. Freedom from want and fear means somebody, ie government, has to provide them with what they want and with safety. That means they aren’t really freedoms, but benefits given at the expense of others. Even then, there is no limit to how much somebody can want and some people will fear regardless how much safety is given to them. So how against are these freedoms? But that is their idea of liberty.

Michael,
I mostly agree. However, when liberals speak of liberty, I think often they mean libertinism without responsibility. For example, on the drug legalization issue, I think libertarians believe that every adult should have the liberty to put into his own body what he pleases, but that person should then suffer any adverse consequences, unless others offer assistance out of their own personal charitableness. Liberals, on the other hand, might agree that adults should be allowed to put into their bodies what they please, but then society, meaning you and I, should bail them out when adverse consequences arise.

As an active tea party member, I can tell you that karma has nothing to do with it. The two words I hear most are “republic” and “Constitution.” Everybody, even the liberals, talk about liberty. The tea party is all about how to restore and ensure this liberty. And the answer is the republican form of government as defined by the Constitution.

And there is also no so much difference between a libertarian and a liberal. I mean, in the end we all want the best for everyone, right 😉 ?

Yes the libertarians share some views with conservatives, because conservatives are fighting against the current ruler of the white house who is a liberal. But when they will have power what will they do? Answer: the same bullshit as 4 years ago with Bush.

Conservatives use the same old bad policies, imperialism, protectionism, and a stronger State.